Posts made by d142

when i play, i most likely end up with 1 tech, the cost of rolling for multiple techs is way too much,

it is difficult enough to get the I.P.C. together and roll for 1 tech when playing germany, unless a capital was taken i would not roll for another tech,

now that tech can not be directly targeted, it is somewhat of a lottery as to the value of rolling for tech, the randomness is fair, although when a player of a very high standard play’s a player of a lower standard, it could be offputting to roll for a tech, which may or may not be needed or even useful,

take improved shipyards for example, if the cost of rolling for a tech is 25 > 30 I.P.C. if i am playing as russia that tech is completely useless,

when playing revised i always rolled jet fighter’s, they are great for defending against a german attack, defense 5 and with 10 infantry to hold the line, the german attack would be ducking and diving, and switching to get a foot in door,

improved shipyards could be useful to the u.s. player, early in the game when they can build a force to challenge japan,
with the 55 > 60 i.p.c. that the u.s. player has, there is a oppurtunity for the u.s. player to back up their industry, and build ships for 1 > 3 i.p.c. less, that can make a big difference when building large scale fleet’s

for a player that build’s a lot of bomber’s, paratroopers would be a great advantage, the problem is how to get the tech with a lucky roll of 3, it is possible to use the tech for 30 i.p.c. from enhanced, with the option of the 6 i.p.c. buy out,

i think that it was axis_roll that made that rule,

that would reduce a paratrooper fanatics odd’s of getting paratroopers, when i use the same tech rules i buy out of the
paratrooper tech each time, and go for advanced artillery, war bond’s, mech infantry and increased factory production,

if a player build’s a lot of bomber’s, why not try tech chart 2 and go for heavy bomber’s,

i would not like to be on the recieving end of an organised paratrooper attack,
although with the chance to roll for radar, i would back the AA gun to hit 25% > 30% of the time

i would not determine the effectivness of a tech until i had played at least ten games with the same tech,
against different opponent’s,

it is obvious that mech infantry is a far superior way to get infantry from territory > territory, than the standard infantry move 1 space, long range aircraft and jet fighter’s, that is the best combo

here is an idea for paratrooper tech, build 5 - 10 bomber’s, and build at the border’s, then when the attack is primed,

unleash the bomber’s with the paratrooper’s, something like a brass ball and chain to reinforce the front and drive toward the enemy capital,

there would be a need for a great ground attack, with a lot of armor and artillery, including infantry,

with that there could be a chance that paratrooper tech could be used as a great resource,

in the instance of a patient build up of ground forces,

although in the face of mech infantry, war bond’s, and increased factory production, a more subtle approach could reap greater reward’s, such as S.B.R.

the possibility of taking obscure and remote territories, such as madagascar and brazil is a possibility, holding those territories is another matter entirely, not impossible, although with only paratroopers the rescue or liberation of remote places would be easily achievable with a heavy bomber and a transport,

i have liberated brazil from weak invasions, and reclaimed the 3 I.P.C.

i do not see the value of a ridiculous 1 infantry attack that has no real influence at the battle,
1 infantry to a battle per bomber,
i would not entertain or endure such a tech, and also it could lure a player into a sense of false security,
with the player supported by paratroopers building bombers like there is no tomorrow they could be caught by a radar inspired AA gun attack, or forced to move the bombers which have a weak defence away from the front line,
and with a player’s hopes centred totally on paratrooper tech and the false dawn that they entail,
a squad of the same cost of fighter’s for the opponent would easily counter the overstreched arm of the paratrooper player, 4 bomber’s, 4 infantry, at a cost of 67
against a squad of fighter’s for the same cost, 6 fighter’s and change for artillery and infantry, i would move my fighter’s around the board and negate a paratrooper attack at every turn,

with war bond’s rolling at average, 3 / 4, after 5 -6 round’s i would have 15 > 20 i.p.c, and when playing germany and collecting N.O. a build of 70 I.P.C. or more would cause a collapse of a wily russia player’s strategy,

with the cost of those paratrooper bomber’s, a heavy stack of ground infantry and armor is unlikely, more likely non existant, i could predict a situation where the offensive would be ground to a halt at round 7 > 9, with enough infantry and armor and a not too light scattering of fighter’s at defence 4, i would heartily laugh and at the advancing army of paratroopers with no ground support,

to build a strategy based entirely around paratroopers, based on the premise that paratroopers can cause a influential swing toward victory for the attacker would be similar to a fool’s gold rush against a player that can easily negate and nullify such attack’s,

i would go with long range heavy bomber’s, improved factories and war bond’s, improved shipyard’s could be useful

i could see paratroopers being useful at the pacific theatre,

the u.s. can build a lot of bomber’s, and with the paratrooper tech could cause a lot of damage to poorly defended axis held island’s, although with the large japanese navy, the bomber’s would be more useful at sinking the japanese navy,

i think that there are a lot of advantages to paratrooper tech,

sneak attack’s being the the most annoying, they would keep opponent’s edgy and fearful and the prospect of a surprise attack, could be too much to handle for a weak opponent,

however,

i still see paratrooper tech as a poor substitute for the real backbone of a fleetfooted infantry,
or advanced artillery,

what about war bond’s, when i use war bond’s, i would save them all up and buy a huge navy, full of battleships and a monster attack force, that would crush a weak-willed paratrooper based attack,

sniping a territory is possible, if there was no one there, otherwise there would be a need for a way too expensive paratrooper attack,

the way that i see the bomber is that they are useful for S.B.R. against a low I.P.C. earning player,
against a high earning I.P.C. player the S.B.R. and paratrooper attack is negated, and also there is the problem of spending all the I.P.C. on a less than worthwhile attack,

to plough into paratrooper tech would be arrogant against a well drilled opponent, especially with the opponent in command of their capital, spending all that I.P.C. to hope to snipe a few territories, it could take 12 -15 turn’s before there was real progress, and at that the opponent would probably have sniped a capital, and counting the I.P.C. while the paratrooper builder had a mighty airforce with no ground support,

paratrooper tech may be under-rated, it is because it is the weakest of all the tech, if my only tech was paratroopers, and faced opponent’s, with mech infantry, super-submarines, advanced artillery, and war bond’s, i would most likely run for cover, concede, or to finish the game play the paratrooper tech, and see it demolished,

if you have paratrooper tech, it is useful, something like a lucky penny, however if the penny is rubbed the wrong way, a player could fall flat and end up with no capital, or worse, no I.C.

it is no match for the soundness of the mighty jet fighter, or rolling thunder of mech infantry, supported by heavy long range bomber’s

if i do have the unfortuity to end up with paratrooper tech, i am sure that i can find a use in the pacific for it  :-)

yeah, i can understand how paratroopers could cause havoc,

getting behind enemy lines, and blocking off reinforcement routes,

there attack value would be secondary or less,

therefore using paratroopers for attack would take a lot of planning, or a last resort, when there are no other option’s for a bomber that round, or an opportunistic attack,

the cost of building a fleet of bomber’s, when the paratrooper tech has been achieved, would be astronomical, based around the idea of a paratrooper inspired major offensive,

if the paratrooper tech has been achieved, it is not useless,

if there is a need to get infantry to the front line to spearhead an attack where infantry can become scarce due to the fact that most player’s lose infantry as the first order of a casualty count, that is a great advantage, although the cost of purchasing the bomber can be too great to sustain a prolonged effort in running infantry to the front line,

with the cost of bomber’s at 13, i could get 2 artillery, 1 armor /2/2/3/, or 2 armor, 1 infantry, /3/3/1/

rather than a fleet of 5 bomber’s at /4/4/4/4/4/ and 5 infantry at /1/1/1/1/1/

10 armor, 5 infantry /3/3/3/3/3/3/3/3/3/3//1/1/1/1/1/

10 artillery, 5 armor /2/2/2/2/2/2/2/2/2/2//3/3/3/3/3/

if those number’s were run, the ground attack win’s each time, if a player want’s to take a territory, they have to relinquish valuable bomber’s, with a few infantry left i do not see the worthiness of a full scale paratrooper attack,

a wary player would easily be able to counter a non reinforced paratrooper attack of 3 - 5 infantry and check the attacker’s paratrooper plan out of the game,

mech infantry would be the best tech, if germany get’s mech infantry, it would be light’s out for russia, double quick,

or vice-versa

i am involved in a game at the moment where germany has paratroopers, and 4 -5 bomber’s, i have not seen a single prolific move used with the paratrooper tech, i am playing the u.s. and i am stranded at gibraltar with 3 infantry, 3 artillery,
if germany unleashes it’s mighty paratroopers, with a transport of 1 infantry, 1 armor / or artillery,

that would be 4 at 1, 1 at 3, and 3 at 4, i would think 6 at 2, would go 3 round’s, and no takeover,

a good player would alway’s get the best from the tech that they have,

if i rolled paratroopers, i would have a lot of strategy to use by that tech, it is not a dominant tech that overwhelming strategies could be built around, it is more of an expensive outreach, that could end with disaster, and a huge dent to a player’s i.p.c. count,

could paratroopers be used to break major ground and sustain the offensive, without losing that ground and having to rebuild again for the next offensive, or would the cost of supplying bomber’s, cut the strenght of a support ground offensive, thereby creating a major weakness and understrenght with the offensive

i thought that the bomber could not attack when dropping off paratroopers,
with that information it does make the prospect of getting paratroopers seem more worthwhile and useful,
it is still a very lightweight tech, and one that i would be disappointed with, because of the 1 infantry capability,
with the rule that bomber’s can attack, relieve’s the handicap of having to choose whether to do a drop off or a bombing run,
i think that with a 2 infantry capability the paratrooper tech would be worthy of more than a sigh of disappointment if a 3 is rolled for tech chart 1,

however, with this new information, paratroopers would climb above above increased factory production and rocket’s for tech chart 1 favorite tech

when using a bomber to move a unit, the attack advantage for that bomber is lost for that round,

there are 2 advantages that paratrooper tech has over transport, and the advantages are that a bomber can move 6 or 8,
and can move a unit over land without stopping at a hostile territory,

compared to mechanized infantry, i would go with mechanized infantry, because there is no cost to the attack, and no unit to buy,

i would see paratroopers used more if the tech was more balanced,

i would send the bomber to the battle / attack 4, rather than a infantry / attack 1, or 2 with artillery,

the paratrooper tech would be useful if there was no target for the bomber, otherwise i would send the bomber, and with heavy bomber’s, 2 dice / attack 4, paratrooper tech would have to be significantly improved for me to want such a minor tech

i do not like to see outrageous tech modification, although with the cost of rolling for tech, and the frustration of not rolling a 6, i stay away from rolling for tech for the most part, unless i have a clear i.p.c. advantage, and can afford to roll for the tech, otherwise rolling for tech can be foolhardy

i think that the modified account of the tech rule’s from enhanced work’s well,

after 30 i.p.c. worth of dice roll’s, tech is achieved, after that many dice roll’s with no success, i would be wary of purchasing more research token’s,

when purchasing research token’s, the most that a player could spend at a round would be 15 > 20 i.p.c.

with no success, and a failure at the next round, that can break the game far too much to the other, player’s advantage,

if one of any of the player’s lean’s too heavily toward tech, it could cost the game

paratroopers can be helpful, although i would think that tech would be useful as a hit and run type sneak attack, used to reinforce a heavy attack, or to catch a player offguard, i think that the paratrooper tech it is too much of a hit and hope, with the cost of running the bomber, that can not attack, and that can carry 1 infantry unit,

i think that the paratrooper tech would not be a useless tech,

if i had paratrooper’s during a game, i would use my bomber’s to move the infantry to reinforce a line at the non combat move, where the infantry are most effective defending at the next round, if i had not used the bomber to attack,

i think that paratrooper’s would be a more sought after tech if it had 1 of 2 improvement’s,

carry 3 infantry, or carry 1 infantry and that the bomber could attack

the idea is based on the premise that a bomber could make two significant attack’s,

the attack value is reduced for each attack,

i would use the rule for bomber’s or heavy bomber’s,

i think that it could be an idea if the axis and allies publisher’s made a set of expansion pieces,

individual national sculpt’s for all the unit’s, and new sculpt’s of different types of aircraft, land unit’s and ship’s,

i think that a box of unit’s of 100 - 150 pieces, would serve the game and player’s well,

all the national power’s would have individual and co-operative sculpt’s, defining the independence and co-operation of the national power’s, and the addition of new sculpt’s would enhance the scale and visual niceness of the boardgame

i have not yet purchased the axis and allies anniversary edition,

i could not determine what new sculpt’s would be needed, although from my experience of revised, russia needed ship’s,
the u.k. needed artillery and armor,

and the allies needed individual transport ship’s,

i think that the addition of new sculpt’s, of battleship’s and fighter’s and armor, for all the national power’s could be worth buying

i have no idea how much that it could cost, although if it would be too expensive, i would not buy the set

i do not think that the name of the project has a bearing on the finished article,

i would call it axis and allies / enhanced house-rule set /

i would use the 50th anniversary rule set as the base,

taking into account the mechanic’s of all unit’s of the axis and allies edition’s,

if an individual would want to write a rule set, it is not mandatory to use that ruleset,

if i do not want to use a rule, i do not use that rule, whether it would be axis and allies / or enhanced
tournament’s and online would be the time that i would use an official rule set,

otherwise to change the layout, pace or direction of the game, i would invent rule’s, or take advice given by other player’s

house rule

a bomber can attack 2 territories,

the bomber has 2 attack values, which the player can determine for each attack, either 3 or 2, the player can use attack 3 for the first round, and attack 2 for the second round, or , attack 2 for the first round, and attack 3 for the second round,

this house rule would be optional, if a bomber attack’s 1 territory, the bomber would have attack 4

the first territory that a bomber attack’s, the bomber attacks’ at 3 or 2,

the second territory that a bomber attack’s, the bomber attack’s at 3 or 2, after the same number of round’s of battle that the bomber would have been involved with during the first attack

i.e. russia has a bomber at russia, russia send’s 2 infantry, 2 artillery, 1 bomber to belorussia,
the battle goes for 3 round’s

russia send’s 3 infantry, 3 armor, 2 fighter’s from karelia to baltic states,

after 3 round’s of battle the bomber that had participated with the attack at belorussia could attack at the baltic states

for S.B.R.

attack at 3 / dice roll  - 2 / if a 1 or 2 are rolled / roll again

attack at 2 / dice roll / - 3 / if a 1,2 or 3 are rolled / roll again

move 6

heavy bomber / roll 2 dice

long range bomber / move 8

i think that it is possible to play the game with alliances,

each player start’s the game independently, alliances can be formed for capturing territories, or defending territories,

if a player agrees to reinforce another player’s attack ( there is a house rule that allow’s player’s to reinforce for multi-national attack / ) or defence, the player’s concerned could divide the i.p.c. captured or held by negotiating the value among themselves,

some thing like a free for all, with the idea that alliances could be formed,

i would determine victory by last alliance standing / or a set number of victory cities

player’s could form alliances, or go it alone,

if you have lot’s of playing pieces, from other edition’s of axis and allies, you could have up to 10 player’s in a huge free for all, with alliances being made,

if you lend some of your force to a player they would take command of that force, and it would be that plkayer’s initiative to send it back or use it, these forces could not be used to attack the same alliance, or their original power,

they could however be captured, by the player that wanted the alliance, and used as hostages,

i think that a rule set would be fun,

how are the fleet marker’s used ?

big pieces, with a new color scheme

yeah, the lead singer has a great voice, very smooth and unimposing, it is easy to understand what the song’s are about,
even with the band playing, the singer rises to the band and equal’s or surpasses the band with a big voice

i especially like the band’s music, i think that with a piano for all those song’s, a lot of those song’s would be lost or forgotten, or would not have the same effect, for me anyway

nirvana, i have never heard ‘pearl jam’ play

evanescence are my current favourite, the music is some of the best that i have heard

also if there is a germany > japan / russia > u.s.

yeah, i can understand where there may be some problem’s, i think that 1 round of reinforcement’s at the start of the game could rebalance the starting strenght of forces,

another way to use multi national attack’s would be to use a variant of the lend lease rule from the revised edition of axis and allies,

i.e. if the italy player moves’ some armor to poland at the non combat move at round 1, these can be controlled by the germany player at the next round,

to stay within the logic of 1 move per round, some book keeping would be required, though only in the incidence of a germany > italy / russia > u.k. / italy > japan / u.k > u.s. /

the player who has controlling influence at the territory, has control of all the friendly forces at that territory,